IS THE PROTO-LUKE HYPOTHESIS SOUND?

[Secret Alias]

Oh and another coincidence! It isn't just a line that Irenaeus cites once. No, no, no. He cites it OVER AND OVER AGAIN because it makes a theological point he considers important:

Now this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet: Behold. a virgin shall conceive, and bring forth a son, and they shall call His name Emmanuel, which is, God with us;" clearly signifying that both the promise made to the fathers had been accomplished, that the Son of God was born of a virgin, and that He Himself was Christ the Saviour whom the prophets had foretold; not, as these men assert, that Jesus was He who was born of Mary, but that Christ was He who descended from above. Matthew might certainly have said, "Now the birth of Jesus was on this wise;" but the Holy Ghost, foreseeing the corrupters [of the truth], and guarding by anticipation against their deceit, says by Matthew, "But the birth of Christ was on this wise;" and that He is Emmanuel, lest perchance we might consider Him as a mere man: for "not by the will of the flesh nor by the will of man, but by the will of God was the Word made flesh;" and that we should not imagine that Jesus was one, and Christ another, but should know them to be one and the same. (3.16.2)

How fucking fortuitous this fucking Irenaeus was! Not only did he find all these gospels that spoke in the same dialect as him (a dialect he noted was unique in the fucking intro to Adv Haer) but they all happened to use this fucking dialect to make fucking theological points he wanted to make against his rivals. By golly 'the Holy Spirit' is fucking powerful.

Now let's take this to next point. Irenaeus explicitly says that 'those who prefer Mark' separate Jesus and Christ (3.11.7). Now it JUST SO HAPPENS that he found a gospel by Matthew written in the same distinct dialect as him which has a birth narrative which contradicts those who read Mark incorrectly. Wow! Can't see a smoking gun there.

[Secret Alias]

I won't bore the forum members but Irenaeus repeatedly uses Matthew 1.23 to prove that Jesus was a god at birth. Period. This obvious is understood to contradict Mark and those who interpret the text in an adoptionist way (which was everyone before Irenaeus apparently). But interesting also that in Apostolic Preaching he doesn't so much as cite Matthew (or even cite the words as if from Matthew) but paraphrases the argument as if ... as if ... as if it was his own:

For this cause then is He Saviour. Now Emmanuel is, being interpreted, with you God; or as a yearning cry uttered by the prophet, such as this: With us shall be God; according to which it is the explanation and manifestation of the good tidings proclaimed.

Who else but Irenaeus wrote the introduction to Matthew. Another Latinized Greek speaking Church Father?

[Ben C. Smith]

And odd that we should find by Luke:

Τότε ὑπέστρεψαν εἰς Ἰερουσαλὴμ ἀπὸ ὄρους τοῦ καλουμένου Ἐλαιῶνος, ὅ ἐστιν ἐγγὺς Ἰερουσαλὴμ σαββάτου ἔχον ὁδόν.

This (Acts 1.12) is not the same thing. You cannot just go looking randomly for instances of "ὅ ἐστιν". This one is a legitimate relative pronoun in the neuter after the neuter noun ὄρους. Greek speakers are allowed to use the innocuous phrase "which is" without having indulged in a Latinism.

There is something in Acts 4.36 which might at first look like the Latinism, as well, but that one, too, is an illusion, I believe (though for different reasons than at Acts 1.12).

[Charles Wilson]

Can you at least show evidence of some ancient writer evincing the skills you want people of the era to have? I strongly doubt you can.

Spin --

Far be it for me to interrupt a pissing contest here. I quote you for 2 reasons:

Nicholas of Damascus. Rome's Political Control Officer to keep Herod on the Short Leash. Nicholas argues in front of Caesar at some intervals against the Judean Riff-Raff. He supplies "a lot" of the material for Josephus concerning Herod and Archelaus. Nicholas helped Herod in Philosophy. Herod orders his Court along Greek lines. Lotsa' Latin and Greek possibilities here.

Mucianus. The Mucianus Thesis gets absolutely no traction on this site but I believe his importance cannot be overstated. http://quod.lib.umich.edu/m/moa/acl3129 ... view=image :

"His powers of oratory are greatly praised by Tacitus, who tells us that Mucianus could address an oratory even in Greek with great effect..."

Quotes from Tacitus are seldom without meaning. Mucianus was in love with Titus. He provides the Template for "Paul"(See: "The Road to Damascus" and Mucianus falling in with Vespsian after Titus has a word with Mucianus.). It is a very short step to get from here to a "Short Form" reading that gives Mucianus credit for an early version of the Christian Story through the Deification of Titus.

Two people who could have provided a Latinized Greek version of the early Christian Stories.

CW

[Ben C. Smith]

I won't bore the forum members but Irenaeus repeatedly uses Matthew 1.23 to prove that Jesus was a god at birth. Period.

I know that spin conceded Matthew 1.23 as an example of the Latinism, but I am not so sure. Again, the antecedent (or at least one of the two possible antecedents) is in the neuter singular:

ἰδοὺ ἡ παρθένος ἐν γαστρὶ ἕξει καὶ τέξεται υἱόν, καὶ καλέσουσιν τὸ ὄνομα [neuter singular] αὐτοῦ Ἐμμανουήλ, ὅ [neuter singular] ἐστιν μεθερμηνευόμενον μεθ᾽ ἡμῶν ὁ θεός.

If this is a Latinism (and if τὸ ὄνομα be counted as the antecedent), then Thucydides used Latinisms, as well:

τιθέασιν οὖν ἐς τὸ δημόσιον σῆμα [neuter singular], ὅ [neuter singular] ἐστιν ἐπὶ τοῦ καλλίστου προαστείου τῆς πόλεως....

The examples in Mark do not follow this pattern. Mark 15.16, for example:

Οἱ δὲ στρατιῶται ἀπήγαγον αὐτὸν ἔσω τῆς αὐλῆς [feminine singular], ὅ [neuter singular] ἐστιν πραιτώριον, καὶ συγκαλοῦσιν ὅλην τὴν σπεῖραν.

That one is a possible Latinism.

Also, I believe this expression does show up in Greek which does not otherwise evince a Latin influence, so it is not necessarily its mere presence in a text that is most important: it is proportionally far more common in the case of Mark than in other books.

[Secret Alias]

And because I get bored of arguing with people, allow me a digression. It has long been recognized that parts of Tertullian's Against the Jews and Against Marcion 3 come from a common source. This source was clearly writing against or to the Jews not the Marcionites. Why the text became applied to the Marcionites is a good question. But notice some of the peculiar features of the argumentation of this/these text(s).

After a prolonged argument from Papias (?) originally that makes the case that the 70 weeks terminated at the birth of Jesus, the author cites a variant text written by - you guessed it - a 'Latinized Greek speaking Christian' which so happens to be cited by Matthew:

Begin we, therefore, to prove that the Birth of Christ was announced by prophets; as Isaiah foretells,

"Hear ye, house of David; no petty contest have ye with men, since God is proposing a struggle. Therefore God Himself will give you a sign; Behold, the virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and ye shall call his name Emmanuel" which is, interpreted, "God with us": butter and honey shall he eat; since, ere the child learn to call father or mother, he shall receive the power of Damascus and the spoils of Samaria, in opposition to the king of the Assyrians."

Accordingly the Jews say: Let us challenge that prediction of Isaiah, and let us institute a comparison whether, in the case of the Christ who is already come, there be applicable to Him, firstly, the name which Isaiah foretold, and (secondly) the signs of it130 which he announced of Him.

And just to prove his point (that Isaiah is saying this) the author goes on to say:

For subjoined is withal the interpretation of Emmanuel--"God with us" --in order that you may regard not the sound only of the name, but the sense too. For the Hebrew sound, which is Emmanuel, has an interpretation, which is, God with us. [3] Inquire, then, whether this speech, "God with us" (which is Emmanuel), be commonly applied to Christ ever since Christ's light has dawned, and I think you will not deny it. For they who out of Judaism believe in Christ, ever since their believing on Him, do, whenever they shall wish to say132 Emmanuel, signify that God is with us: and thus it is agreed that He who was ever predicted as Emmanuel is already come, because that which Emmanuel signifies is come--that is, "God with us."

[Secret Alias]

It has long been recognized that parts of Tertullian's Against the Jews and Against Marcion 3 come from a common source. This source was clearly writing against or to the Jews not the Marcionites. Why the text became applied to the Marcionites is a good question. But notice some of the peculiar features of the argumentation of this/these text(s).

After a prolonged argument from Papias (?) originally that makes the case that the 70 weeks terminated at the birth of Jesus, the author cites a variant text written by - you guessed it - a 'Latinized Greek speaking Christian' which so happens to be cited by Matthew:

Begin we, therefore, to prove that the Birth of Christ was announced by prophets; as Isaiah foretells,

"Hear ye, house of David; no petty contest have ye with men, since God is proposing a struggle. Therefore God Himself will give you a sign; Behold, the virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and ye shall call his name Emmanuel" which is, interpreted, "God with us": butter and honey shall he eat; since, ere the child learn to call father or mother, he shall receive the power of Damascus and the spoils of Samaria, in opposition to the king of the Assyrians."

Accordingly the Jews say: Let us challenge that prediction of Isaiah, and let us institute a comparison whether, in the case of the Christ who is already come, there be applicable to Him, firstly, the name which Isaiah foretold, and (secondly) the signs of it130 which he announced of Him.

And just to prove his point (that Isaiah is saying this) the author goes on to say:

For subjoined is withal the interpretation of Emmanuel--"God with us" --in order that you may regard not the sound only of the name, but the sense too. For the Hebrew sound, which is Emmanuel, has an interpretation, which is, God with us. [3] Inquire, then, whether this speech, "God with us" (which is Emmanuel), be commonly applied to Christ ever since Christ's light has dawned, and I think you will not deny it. For they who out of Judaism believe in Christ, ever since their believing on Him, do, whenever they shall wish to say132 Emmanuel, signify that God is with us: and thus it is agreed that He who was ever predicted as Emmanuel is already come, because that which Emmanuel signifies is come--that is, "God with us."

[Secret Alias]

But the point is that the Latinized Greek is part of a corruption effort. This isn't 'accidental.'

[Secret Alias]

I've read so many scholars who have 'wrestled' with this text of Isaiah. Won't admit:

1. that the Patristic writings go back to information earlier than the synoptics
2. that all the inherited Biblical texts are hopelessly corrupt.

So just to make clear. Matthew is citing this shitty text of Isaiah, a shitty text of Isaiah corrupted by a Latinized-Greek speaker.

[Ben C. Smith]

But the point is that the Latinized Greek is part of a corruption effort. This isn't 'accidental.'

No, the point is that you have identified some items as instances of Latinisms which are not.